JAGDISH SAHAI, J. :-This case has been laid before this Full Bench on a reference made by a Division Bench.

2. Raja Yuveraj Datt Singh of Oel is a Bhumidhar within the meaning of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act) as also A tenure-holder of a large number of plots within the meaning of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He is said to have been possessed of 2510.96 acres of land. He made certain transfers from the land held by him after the 20th of August 1959.

3. In connection with the proceedings under the Act, admittedly he filed no statement under Section 9 of the Act. The Prescribed Authority proceeded against him under Section 10 of the Act and prepared u statement. A notice in C.L.H. Form 4 was issued to Raja Yuveraj Datt Singh who filed objections to the statement and stated clearly in his objections that he wanted to retain plots situate in village Oel, in his ceiling area. This objection was rejected and Raja Yuveraj Datt Singh was allotted land in villages Sunsi and Barter.

4. Raja Yuveraj Datt Singh's appeal was dismissed and the order of the Prescribed Authority was upheld by the District Judge, Kheri. Thereafter he filed writ petition No. 296 of 1965 in this Court. This writ petition was dismissed by B.N. Nigam, J., on 21st of April, 1966. This led to the filing of the instant special appeal against the judgement of B.N. Nigam, J. dated 21st of April, 1966.

5. The Prescribed Authority dealt with the question of the choice given by Raja Yuveraj Datt Singh in the following words :-

"The objector wants to retain certain plots of village Oel to be included in his Ceiling area. He has, however, made transfers of more than 40.00 acres of land after 20-8-59, and in case the transferred area is to be treated as his Ceiling area, he will be left with no land and even some of the other transfers may have to be taken into consideration whether their land should or should not be declared surplus. It is but fair that 40.00 F. Q. acres of land permissible to the tenure holder as ceiling area should consist of the land transferred after 20-8-59 and such transferred land as cannot be declared Celling area, should be included in the surplus area. His choice for retaining specific plots cannot therefore, be adhered to".

6. Before B.N. Nigam, J., the following submissions were made on behalf of Raja Yuveraj Datt Singh :-

1. That the petitioner (Raja Yuveraj Datt Singh) having indicated his choice of the land he wanted to retain within the ceiling area, the Prescribed Authority could not reject his choice;

2. That the land transferred by the petitioner (Raja Yuveraj Datt Singh) could not be allotted to him as it was no longer in his possession within the meaning of Section 5(2) of the Act.

3. That the petitioner was entitled to 40 acres of fair quality land and inasmuch as the land which he had already transferred has been allotted to him, he has not been given 40 acres of land.

B.N. Nigam, J., repelled all the three submissions of the learned counsel and dismissed the writ petition as stated above.

7. The special appeal came up for hearing before a Division Bench consisting of two of us (Jagdish Sahai and R. Chandra, JJ.). The Division Bench referred the whole case to the Full Bench because it was of the opinion that the decision of this Court in Kali Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1964 All LJ 896, the correctness of which was challenged by Mr. Dhaon, may require re-examination.

8. In 1964 All LJ 896 (supra), it was held by Desai, C.J., and R.S. Pathak, J., that whereas a tenure-holder can insist on his choice If he flies a statement under Section 9 of the Act, he has no such right when proceedings are taken under Section 10 and decided under Section 12 of the Act, for in that case, he can give a choice but that is not binding on the Prescribed Authority. It was also held in the aforesaid case that a par